Wednesday, February 27. 2008

Canada confirmed its 12th case of mad-cow disease in an animal born about five years after the nation banned some feed ingredients to halt the spread of the brain-wasting illness.

The sick animal was a six-year-old dairy cow from Alberta, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency said today in a statement on its Web site. Canada and the U.S. in 1997 banned the use of cattle feed containing ground-up cattle tissue, which scientists say is the way most animals contract the disease.

What can I say. Yet another case in Canada. I still keep wondering why they have this continued problem. I believe this is the 5th one that was born after the feed ban was initiated. Since the feed ban is supposed to stop this why do they keep having cases? Is the feed ban ban not working or is it being intentionally violated or accidentally violated? I would sure like to know.

The CFIA said it expects to detect ``a small number of cases'' as Canada moves toward eliminating BSE from its herds.

I find this news interesting. Yes, I would expect to find "a small number of cases'' from cattle born before the feed ban, but why do we keep seeing it from animals born after the feed ban? This is something American Cattlemen would really like to understand. I am sure no answers to that question will be forthcoming from the USDA. The meat packers don't allow such things.

A correct answer is like an affectionate kiss. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Tuesday, November 20. 2007

I didn't comment on the USDA's OTM rule yesterday allowing older Canadian Cattle to be imported into the US. It's one of those situations that I have mixed feelings about.

The people opposed to the OTM rule say that they oppose it because it is a food safety issue. We could possibly be importing BSE into the US from Canada and have additional BSE problems here. There is a very slim chance this is true. I don't quite buy that this is the true reason for their opposition. It's to protect our market is the true reason, at least that is the way I see it and I don't have a problem with that.

The people supporting the OTM rule, besides Canadian Cattlemen, say that it is a matter of market fairness. Both the US and Canada are considered "minimal risk" areas for BSE and their should be minimal trade restrictions. We in the US want the Asian markets to open up to more of our beef product under this "minimal risk" rule. If we believe in the "minimal risk" rule and want other countries to respect it, shouldn't we allow in cattle to the US under the same "minimal risk" rule that we want other countries to respect for us? Seems awful hypocritical if we don't allow the cattle in. We can't have it both ways here.

Either we as a country believe in the "minimal risk" rule or we don't. If we want Asian countries to follow the "minimal risk" rule then we should. That's why I am torn on this issue. I hate hypocrisy and fighting this OTM rule strikes me as hypocrisy. I did see where the Farm Bureau is calling for increased testing of Canadian cattle for BSE as a possible compromise to groups that oppose the OTM rule on food safety grounds. This seems to make sense and might be just the right compromise to make this work.

In the meantime we will have to see what comes of R-Calf's lawsuit to stop this trade. It's really truly no surprise that they are doing this. The courts are their favorite battle ground and that is where they are fighting this.

I hope you see why I am conflicted on this issue. We want other people to respect a rule but we don't want to? That's not right. Mutual respect is something I learned a long time ago and I have to live to my code.

Wednesday, October 31. 2007

A now-closed Canadian beef company was the source of contaminated meat that sickened 45 people in eight states, U.S. Department of Agriculture officials say.

One of those states was Wyoming. A recall pulled the meat from shelves in Cheyenne in late September and early October.

A joint U.S. and Canadian investigation identified the source by matching the DNA fingerprint of E. coli O157:H7 to a sample still in storage with Rancher's Beef Ltd. of Balzac, Alberta.

It also matches samples taken from Topps Meat Co. frozen hamburger packages at the homes of food poisoning victims.

This is interesting. Topps Meat went out of business because of the E. coli problem, and Rancher's Beef Ltd in Canada went out of business before the discovery, or did they. Did Rancher's Beef know of the E. Coli problem and declare bankruptcy and go out of business before the E. Coli could be traced back to them?

In a lot of ways I doubt it, but it is interesting. There is a lot of opposition out there in cattle country to Canada shipping down older cattle because of BSE risk due to the new USDA rule. The chances of somebody getting sick and dying are a lot less from BSE from live cattle, statistically so close to zero as to be unimportant, than all ready proven from E. Coli shipped in from processed meat from Canada. Where is the hue and cry about public safety about E. coli from Canada from within cattle country? I hear a lot of silence.

Truthfully myself, I would be a little more worried about the E. coli, which is a lot more common and causes more fatalities that BSE, than about live cattle bringing in BSE. I know I am in the minority though. Cattlemen are more worried about live cattle than processed beef. I call this hypocrisy. They claim the opposition to live cattle is for food safety, but if it is for food safety shouldn't we be hearing more about the E. coli issue and Canadian beef since this recent disclosure since this E. coli has killed more people than BSE will ever think of killing in the US?

I'm not trying to pick on Canada here, but I do want to highlight where our priorities should be. If it is really on food safety, lets keep our eye on the ball and not lose our way with other issues clouding us. Food safety and security is too big an issue to play politics with.

Friday, October 12. 2007

I guess the answer to everything is to sue somebody. Now Canadian cattlemen are suing the US government over our closing of the border between us to Canadian beef due to BSE concerns. I know Canadian cattleman really suffered during the border shutdown but is it really necessary to sue? What really kills me is foreign citizens suing the US government. I'm just tired of this kind of shit and tired of everything right now.

USCA (Oct. 3, 2007) - Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) today introduced in the United States Senate a Resolution of Disapproval that, if passed, expresses the U.S. Senate’s dissatisfaction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) intention to resume trade in older cattle and beef derived from older cattle with Canada. Senator Dorgan is joined by Senators Michael Enzi (R-WY), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Kent Conrad (D-ND), John Thune (R-SD), Jon Tester, (D-MT), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and John Barrasso (R-WY).

The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) lauded Senator Dorgan’s action, saying public debate over the resolution will highlight problematic provisions in USDA’s Final Rule on the matter and could lead to appropriate and meaningful modifications.

USDA published what is commonly referred to as its "OTM Rule" in the September 18 Federal Register. The agency intends to resume trade in over thirty month of age cattle and beef derived from over thirty month cattle when the 60-day waiting period concludes on November 19.

A Resolution of Disapproval does not impact agency policy unless both the U.S. House and Senate pass it and the President supports it with his signature. Senator Dorgan’s Resolution of Disapproval will, however, put USDA on notice that the Senate strongly disapproves of the Final Rule as written.

"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) applauds Senator Dorgan and Senator Enzi for leading the charge on this resolution," said Chuck Kiker, Beaumont, Texas, USCA Director and Animal Health Committee Chairman. "This will heighten public debate and will certainly enhance public awareness of USDA’s problematic Final Rule."

"The U.S. Cattlemen’s Association has urged USDA to reconsider its decision to establish March 1, 1999 as Canada’s effective feed ban enforcement date," continued Kiker. "Five of Canada’s bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) cases were born after March 1999, with two born in 2001 and one born as late as 2002, a full three years after the supposed effective feed ban enforcement date. USCA believes the Final Rule should be modified so that only cattle and beef derived from cattle born after January 1, 2003 should be allowed entry into the U.S."

McDonnell pointed out that U.S. beef export markets still remain partially closed with key trading partners. Fears related to commingling of U.S. beef with Canadian beef have created concern among U.S. trading partners.

"These difficulties will be much harder to alleviate if we now open the border to Canadian animals that clearly have a potential for exposure to contaminated feed," continued McDonnell. "Modifying the Final Rule will provide more assurance that cattle potentially exposed to contaminated feed will not enter the U.S., putting the U.S. cattle industry in a defensible position with key trading partners."

"Our export customers are allowed to set their own safety standards for importing food products. As a country, and in the spirit of previous U.S. negotiations and trade positions that allow countries flexibility in setting their own import standards when food safety is a concern, one would hope the U.S. would seek higher standards with regard to the safety of beef and cattle imports and not seek the lowest or minimal standards," noted McDonnell.

"USDA’s actions are of concern because they tilt the ‘trading field’ away from U.S. ranchers," he continued. "USDA’s Final Rule fails the litmus test for internationally practiced standards for harmonization, and puts the burden of the Canadian BSE problem squarely on the shoulders of U.S. ranchers. Under this rule, Canada would be able to resume full export volumes, while the U.S. has resumed less than half of our pre-BSE exports," he stated.

Pat Becker, President of the Independent Beef Association of North Dakota (I-BAND), a USCA state affiliate, concurred saying, "USDA’s Final Rule should not be implemented until the U.S. regains export markets lost in 2003 and country of origin labeling is implemented. I-BAND and USCA support what Senator Dorgan has initiated and we will do whatever we can to ensure the resolution’s passage. Certainly, the ensuing debate will underscore the flaws in USDA’s Final Rule, which hopefully will lead to prudent modifications."

Established in March 2007, USCA is committed to assembling a team to concentrate efforts in Washington, DC to enhance and expand the cattle industry’s voice on Capitol Hill. For more information visit www.uscattlemen.org

Thursday, September 20. 2007

The New Zealand Government has been lobbying the United States Department of Agriculture not to introduce food origin labelling on meat, fish and other perishable agricultural goods.

Yes, of all things, the New Zealand government has been submitting comments to COOL in the US opposed to such a thing. Above and beyond the New Zealand government submitting comments, Meat and Wool New Zealand also submitted comments opposing US COOL. I really didn't know they were so scared of US beef down in New Zealand.

This opposition of US COOL was all done under the background of groups in New Zealand pushing for thier own COOL laws.

New Zealand now imports almost 1.5 million tonnes of food a year, and the Green Party says the public have a right to know what they are eating.

The party last month launched a campaign calling for mandatory country of origin food labelling.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Who will win this COOL fight here and in New Zealand. While I am not a big supporter of COOL, what is so bad about labeling meat to its country of origin? Isn't New Zealand proud of its product and want it labeled? If we are proud of ours shouldn't we label it? I don't think there is a food safety issue involved here, more a issue of national pride if nothing else.

I hate people like that... who have no pride in themselves. Katie Price

Wednesday, September 19. 2007

I know I am a little behind on this one but life sometimes gets in the way of things. The USDAhas approved the import of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age into the US. This is, to say the least, a very controversial decision in Cattle producer circles which is why I say I should have commented on this sooner.

Why is this so controversial? It has to do with BSE and trade issues. The Internationally accepted age of cattle where you don't have to worry about BSE, is 30 months of age. As long as a critter is under 30 months of age you don't have to worry about BSE and over 30 months of age, you worry about it. This USDA rule recognizes Canada as a "minimal risk" country which is eligible to import cattle into the US over 30 months of age since they are at "minimal risk" of having BSE.

That's the basis of the controversy in producer circles. According to the NCBA and the meat packers, Canada is at "minimal risk" and should be allowed to import cattle and groups such as R-Calf and USCA think that Canada has a higher risk for BSE than "minimal" and don't want them importing cattle over 30 months of age into the country.

Some more information. (I lost the rest of this the first time around so I am trying to recreate it) As I said, this whole thing has to do with BSE. It is generally accepted that BSE is spread form cow to cow via feed. Use of cattle by products in the slaughter process being fed back to other cows starts and spreads BSE. Both Canad and the US instituted a feed ban a number of years ago that does not allow cattle to be fed back to cattle to prevent the start and spread of BSE, we won't go into my personal theory that there is a naturally occurring form of BSE. The US has had two domestic cases of BSE and Canada has had approximately 10 cases of BSE. Both cases in the US were in cows that were born after the feed ban was instituted. This is not the case with some of the Canadian cases. Some of these cattle were born after the feed ban was put in place. This leads producers in the US to question the effectiveness of the Canadian feed ban and question whether Canada is actually a "minimal risk" country or not.

This is the whole situation that has led USCA to ask the USDA to change the rule calling Canada a "minimal risk" country for BSE and allow them to import cattle into the US. They claim that the importation of Canadian cattle will hurt our export markets since other countries don't want Canadian cattle.

So far I have just laid out the facts. Let me give you my take on the situation. Most people in the greater world stage aren't going to understand or want to know all the facts I have laid out here. They are going to see two things that don't make sense to them. They are going to see that the US wants countries around the world to accept beef from cattle that are over 30 months of age even though they have had BSE found in the country while stopping Canada from importing cattle over 30 months of age into the US because they have had cases of BSE in Canada. This appears to be sheer hypocrisy. They aren't going to care about when the feed ban was instituted and when the cattle were born in which country. They are just going to see the hypocrisy of the US position if the USCA were to prevail and Canada was not allowed to ship cattle over 30 months of age into the US.

Anybody that has read this site very long knows that I almost never defend the governments position on things and NEVER agree with the USDA on things. This time though I am going to have to give the USDA credit, I won't go so far as to defend them but give them credit. I truly believe they have done this with the thought in mind that if we want other countries to take our beef from cattle over 30 months of age, we have to bite the bullet and accept cattle from Canada and show the world that this is the right thing to do.

This is the thought I have had in mind all along with this situation and why you have never heard me ranting about this rule when it was proposed. We can try to explain away the differences in the US and Canadian BSE situation all we want, the perception of the situation is going to rule the day though. If we don't allow Canadian beef in over 30 months of age we will be seen as hypocritical when we try to get other countries to accept US beef over 30 months of age. Perception in this case trumps facts and we have to suck it up. Sorry if you don't like to hear that but that's the way it goes sometimes. We have to do things we don't like to move forward in life and this is one of those cases.

The adjustment of reality to the masses and of the masses to reality is a process of unlimited scope, as much for thinking as for perception. Walter Benjamin

Tuesday, September 11. 2007

I found this article about the possible competition from China for the beef industry interesting. Am I overly worried about China importing meat to the US? No. Where I see the problem coming is the competition in some of the foreign markets like Japan and South Korea that China could give us. That seems a lot more realistic than China shipping Beef to the US.

This is what really surprised me though.

China's cattle and beef production have grown significantly from 2000 to 2007, with beef production up by more than 48 percent during that span, Nelson said. During the same time, China's annual beginning stocks of beef cows grew by 20 percent (from 60 million head to 71.8 million head), and its annual production of calves grew by 51 percent (from 41.8 million head per year to 63.3 million head per year),

Over 70 million head of beef cows. I never thought of China as having that many cattle. It would be interesting to know what kind of potential capacity they have. They have all ready expanded 50%, how much more expansion can the industry take? How much grass and room is there? So far it appears domestic demand is soaking up the extra, is this going to continue? How much beef does the average Chinese eat today? These factors need to be taken into consideration before we can start shouting the sky is falling.

I guess that what R-Calf sounds like here. Chicken Little running around squawking the sky is falling. They can't appear to win there case about beef imports from Canada so they now are going to go after an easier target, China. Don't get me wrong here, China could be a problem for the beef industry down the road but this attack with so little information is a little overboard. I guess R-0Calf is trying to turn their members head from Canada to China. The information about the cattle industry in China though is extremely interesting, and informative. For that I thank R-Calf.

Saturday, August 18. 2007

I would really be curious to know the whole story here. We cattlemen were being told a couple of years ago that packing plants in Canada would hurt US packing plants and start a trend which would require us to ship fats to Canada to be butchered there. I personally thought it was a stretch and not likely to happen, but there were dire warnings out there.

None of that has really happened and now seeing this packing plant closing made me think of it. There are cattlemen here in the US that think Canada is the big bad bogeyman when it comes to cattle. They are out to destroy US beef production and take it all over for themselves. I've never bought in to that argument myself. Mostly because the further north you go the higher your winter feed costs are so Canada producers have some disadvantages to deal with as compared to the more temperate US on the whole. Also if you look at the total numbers of cattle, there are not that many cattle raised in Canada as compared to the US so they will never be able to take over the whole industry like some people think.

I'm sure some group will make political hay out of this and I will get to hear more about all those Canadian cattle coming into the US to slaughter. I get tired of it after a while. If the demand is there and the economics of trucking the cattle all the way down here work out, I don't see a problem. Maybe I don't worry enough about this stuff but life is to short to worry about the small shit.

Every man is his own chief enemy. Anacharsis

UPDATE: I have a little more information here about the closing of this plant. It doesn't answer any of my underlying questions any better but does point out something troubling that I didn't notice before. This plant was financed by cattle producers and a lot of them lost big money now that is is folding. That hurts. Also oldtimer in the comments points out another Canadian plant that might be closing down. It's real interesting that's for sure.

There is a group of ranchers over in the Big Hole country that is looking at opening there own packing plant to slaughter cattle. I hope they take a close look at this situation up in Canada so they can learn from what happened to the plant up there. Opening a packing plant and making it a going concern is not an easy thing and I would be real concerned if I were involved in this endeavor. I have no pretensions on thinking about raising cattle to slaughter weight. I do a very profitable and good business raising calves and selling them to the highest bidder and I don't see a reason to change that now. Anybody that wants to open a slaughter plant so they can raise cattle for slaughter needs to look into these closings closely so they can hopefully avoid the pitfalls these plants are running into. Unless you are doing something very specialized and have the market for it, beef is a commodity business and numbers make a difference. That's the facts whether you like it or not.

Friday, May 25. 2007

I missed this with being so busy and the Brucellosis problem in Montana, but the US received a "controlled risk" status for BSE from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). This is really good news. Under this status age restrictions for beef are no longer valid and any country who maintians one opens themselves up to a trade case with the WTO.

Japan says they will not ease their import restrictions even with this new classification. They are hedging their bets by saying, "It is important to respond to this issue by taking concrete steps in line with scientific facts to ensure food safety and consumers' trust." They don't want to open up their market but they know they are going to have to now.

The only bad news in this for some people in the US cattle industry is that Canada got the same "controlled risk" status as the US. This means the efforts to stop the USDA rule allowing older Canadian cattle into the US should be dead. I'm sure people will continue to try and find a way to stop the Canadian cattle. You know what this is called? Hypocrisy. If they want other countries to open up to US beef but continue to fight that Canadian beef in the US they are hypocrites. Real simple. I'm sure this won't bother some people but I can't stand it. That's why I haven't recently been saying anything against proposed rule when it came out. It seemed hypocritical to me to try to block Canada from something we want other countries to accept from us.

In the name of Hypocrites, doctors have invented the most exquisite form of torture ever known to man: survival. Edward Everett Hale

Saturday, May 5. 2007

Now here is a coin I would like to have. A 220.5 pound gold coin worth one million dollars. Can you imagine that. I have always had a fascination with gold coins. I own a few, but not many, since I don't have the spare cash to really own the numbers I would like. I would have a lot better uses for a million dollars than a gold coin but it would be something to see.

Getting old is a fascination thing. The older you get, the older you want to get. Ralph Waldo Emerson

What, they aren't proud of their product? Don't want to see product of Canada on beef or pork sold in the US? These aren't the reason's for their opposition. Here's the reason.

we also stand to be injured greatly because we don't have normalized access to key markets in Asia at this time.

We now see the problem. With all the BSE problems they have had the Asian markets don't want their beef so to market it they ship the live critter to the US, have it slaughtered and then ship it to the Asian markets. Pretty darn sneaky but we knew that was going on all along. So do the Asian markets, they just turn a blind eye to it, that way they can tell their people they are protecting them from BSE from Canada while maintaining good relations with North America. Win/win all the way around for Canada and the Asian markets. Somewhere in here American cattle producers seem to lose out but the US government doesn't care about that.

One thing I have to agree with is this article is the very last sentence.

"These U.S. outlets do not view this program as a demand-enhancing tool, but rather one that will increase cost," Haney said. "This means that the cost will eventually be transferred back down to U.S. cattle producers."

All I see is how COOL will cost me money in the long run. I don't think the majority of consumers in the US care about where there beef comes from. It's a commodity item that they will pay the cheapest price for. Also consumers don't buy a lot of beef at the store counters anymore. It's all sold in the restaurants and food service industry and people don't care where their beef comes from when they are in a restaurant. Taste and especially price are all they care about. I know there will be people that disagree with these statements out there but I said the majority of people want these things, not the discerning people like those that read this blog that want good tasting beef. To them it would matter, but not to most.

The extra cost I am worried about? The ridiculous requirements the USDA has dreamed up to hamper the implementation of COOL. If I remember right one of them is all US beef has to traced and tracked and all foreign beef is free to move through the system with out being kept track of. That's ridiculous but will cost me money. Why they can't just track all foreign beef and any that makes it to the package is then labeled that way, otherwise it's American. That makes much more sense but the USDA wants COL to fail and they set up the rules so it would. Hopefully Congress looks into this and fixes it.

He who thinks and thinks for himself, will always have a claim to thanks; it is no matter whether it be right or wrong, so as it be explicit. If it is right, it will serve as a guide to direct; if wrong, as a beacon to warn. Jeremy Bentham

Thursday, February 8. 2007

It seems like Canada has a new case of BSE cropping up. This time it is in a bull of an uncertain age, they think 5 to 7 years, and are starting to try and figure out where it got the infected feed. The report indicates that the animal never entered the food chain and I have no reason to doubt this.

I was truly hoping that we wouldn't see any more of this here or in Canada but that's not the case. This will really rally people against cutting off Canadian cattle from coming into the US again. Not that it takes this kind of announcement to do that. Recently Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming wrote a letter to the USDAcritisizing the proposed plan to expand beef imports from Canada and asking Johanns to re-evaluate this decision. BSE was the main concerns driving the letter. With the announcement of a new case in Canada the position of Enzi will only be strengthened.

The real concern in the industry that drives this is cattle prices. Let's get real. There can be a lot of talk behind it about the chances of older cattle having BSE and being shipped to slaughter in the US and how our trade with Canada hurts our foreign markets, but the real thing is prices for the cattle producers.

How do I feel about the Canada cattle situation? I feel that Canada is getting the situation under control and meeting the standards to prevent their feed from being contaminated with the material that causes BSE. That is not going to stop cases from appearing for a while yet so there is a definite concern. The real concern comes down to the perception in foreign markets and here in the US of older cows from Canada having a greater risk of having BSE. If we slaughter them here in the US and mingle the beef with US beef it causes concern in what foreign markets we are winning back and it hurts us. So, I have to come down against letting older cattle in from Canada like the USDA wants to let happen. It has the potential to hurt the US beef industry more than I would like to see.

Another BSE case is a bad deal for the beef industry as a whole. It ignites tempers on both sides of the border and makes life difficult for us all. One thing we know though, is that American and Canadian consumers don't over-react to such things and continue to buy our good, wholesome beef and enjoy consuming it. Beef, it's what's for dinner you know.